What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration dismissed; Petition for Removal granted; Findings and Award of March 2, 2026 rescinded and substituted with Findings and Order invalidating QME panel 7823574 and ordering issuance of replacement chiropractic QME panel
Petition for Reconsideration of Findings and Award issued by WCJ on March 2, 2026, dismissed as to reconsideration and granted as to removal; Findings and Award rescinded and substituted with Findings and Order
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
Defendant's QME panel request was premature due to incorrect date usage, making the panel invalid and entitling applicant to a replacement chiropractic panel.
From the decision · page 6Here, defendant's notice of delay was served on May 23, 2025 within California on applicant by regular mail. (Exhibit A.) The parties were therefore required to wait until fifteen (15) days after May 23, 2025, or until the after 5:00 p.m. on June 9, 2025 before requesting a panel. In their panel request, however, defendant indicated that the "date of request for comprehensive exam" was May 22, 2025. (Exhibit B, p. 3.) This is contrary to the facts of the case and contrary to the parties' stipulation to a May 23, 2025 "start date per Labor Code 4062.2." (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH & SOE), February 2, 2026, p. 2.) We therefore conclude that considering defendant's usage of an incorrect date, defendant's QME panel request was invalid. Accordingly, the issuance of panel 7823574 is similarly invalid.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant served notice of delay on May 23, 2025, but used May 22, 2025 as the date of request for the QME panel
Favours Applicant prevailed
This incorrect date caused the QME panel request to be premature and invalid, leading to the issuance of an invalid panel and entitlement to a replacement panel for the applicant.
From the decision · page 2On May 23, 2025, defendant served upon applicant a notice of delay dated May 22, 2025 informing applicant of a delay in determining liability for workers' compensation benefits. (Exhibit A.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code sections 4060, 4062.2
Labor Code section 4060 and 4062.2 regarding QME panel requests and timing
Defendant's QME panel request was premature because it used an incorrect date, violating the timing requirements of these statutes.
From the decision · page 5Turning now to the merits of the Petition, section 4060 provides guidance as to the QME panel process in cases wherein compensability is disputed and applicant is represented. It provides in relevant part that:
California Code of Regulations, title 8, sections 10605 and 30(b)(2)
California Code of Regulations, title 8, sections 10605 and 30(b)(2) regarding timing and deemed dates for QME panel requests
The regulation clarifies that requests made on weekends or holidays are deemed made on the next business day, supporting the timing analysis of the QME panel request.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Proof of service showing notice of delay was served on May 23, 2025, not May 22, 2025 as defendant claimed
From the decision · page 2On May 23, 2025, defendant served upon applicant a notice of delay dated May 22, 2025 informing applicant of a delay in determining liability for workers' compensation benefits. (Exhibit A.)
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.